So I’m browsing the disappointingly ugly women online last night, a Saturday, I know, but beggars can’t be choosers. Anyway, I’ve been starting to see modern American women as looking more mannish. I know the augural Château Heartíste has been asserting that for a long time, but ever since their recent post of 21 February 2013 entitled “Spot The Masculinized American Woman” I just can’t stop noticing, or thinking I notice, mannish faces on women. Maybe my longstanding fear of mistakenly objectifying a trans-thing-a-ma-gigger has been subtlety but pervasively reinforced by the real women. Some of you have some serious Eve’s apples, for real, but you’re still hot if the lab test shows exactly two X chromosomes. Luv you.
But the other thing I noticed in browsing last night was how not just fat and globular but haggard these proud, lonely reject women are. The complexions are shot and the eyes, faded but stubborn, project inability to adapt to R-E-A-L-I-T-Y. I realize, being broke and mid-40s makes me a lonely reject too, but I’m a realist. I stay in shape, and if I get a job that leads to any disposable income, I will at least be good for night game. Women my age, if they are on the market, are so maladapted it’s not funny. At least I don’t pretend to be husband material. lmfao
Women tend to think of cost as the value of something, whereas a civilized man (or person) looks at the return on investment, the profit, to wit, the gain in excess of the cost. Women too often, quite often, want to cost men in a relationship. Hell, they want to pay on their own credit at conspicuous consumption prices. It’s prehistoric instinctual ego I think. Men, real men, want a profit. This difference in approach between the uncivilized and civilized is telling. Women, left to their own strong and independent devises—a phenomenon possible only by fiat cannibalism financed by fiat money enforced by militarized gunpoint with a Napoleon complex—are choosing expenditure goodness as their hardwired, primitively simplistic emotional imperatives require.
It occurred to me, looking at how much faster women loose their looks than men, and how the uterus is expensive to operate and maintain, and motherhood does not require time-intensive learning like fatherhood…proper father material is a protector and provider and a taker politically if not economically who has to learn how to somewhat master his environment or else he gets no pussy, that simple. So, it occurs to me: The only reason women have been living longer than men is because men must take risks that kill and endure stresses that shorten life expectancy, but being disenfranchised, we men increasingly can’t or won’t. Might the new stresses for men be less deadly? Women have not expanded the US workforce, only transformed it by displacing men and exercising their fiat privileges to industrialize feeeeelings production that makes women so damn happy loving work—or so they say. Girlfriend, you are making such a difference in this world! *gag*
If my hypothesis is right, that feminism has haggard women faster than patriarchy ever did—the pretentious she-child brats, and I expect someone beat me to this predictable consequence of feminizing the workforce, of ‘equalizing’ the roles of the the sexes, and of single motherhood with preferential custody—then wouldn’t the life expectancy of Western women be falling relative to Western men? I mean have you seen how haggard these ladies are by 40? And if the middle class is being liquidated—as it must be for the banking system to extract something for nothing with loan chaining and unwinding—then I would expect life expectancies of Westerners to be dropping, in the not-so-distant future quite precipitously.
So I do a little online search and come up with Table 104 of The 2012 Statistical Abstract from the US Census Bureau. (The Excel data includes more birth years than the pdf data.) I will be presenting data for residents of the United States (of America, duh). The birth years have some discontinuities. The first is year is 1960, followed by 1970–2008, the last year of which shows preliminary values, followed by the years 2010, 2015, and 2020 for which values have been projected. I did not space the years to a uniform scale: they are all pushed together. The influx of civically less accomplished foreign-born residents presumably might skew results and mask the situation with native Americans. Fortunately, the data includes data sets for black and white US residents in isolation, so we might then infer what effect Hispanic immigration is having on the general population.
Note two different methods were used to calculate data prior to 2000 and the data thereafter. Click the graphs to get a better view. WordPress is defaulting to a 300 pixel wide thumbnail, for smart collar phones I expect.
Life expectancies are gently rising for all, but expectancies for white men are closing fast on white women.
No data for blacks was given for birth year 1960.
The ratio of men’s to women’s life expectancies is rising, meaning men are gaining relative to women.
Ratios are proportional and are proportionally comparable over time. Ratios eliminate differences with no sex bias between the two calculation methods at least. If both methods are reasonable, they ought to transition smoothly where they meet, at the step from 1999 to 2000, without a pronounced discontinuity of sex-based difference, or absolute longevity for that matter. Looks pretty smooth and agreeable, except year 1960 has a peculiar standoffishness of nebulous significance.
I have also charted the absolute differences in longevity. Absolute differences do not indicate proportional significance relative to total lifespan, but they are intuitively understandable.
As expected, throughout turnkey debased Western
civilization society the life expectancy of men is gaining relative to that of women. From the OECD branch of the Nu Wurld Odor:
On average across OECD countries, life expectancy at age 65 has increased by 5.6 years for women and 4.4 years for men since 1960. While the gender gap in life expectancy at age 65 widened in many countries in the 1960s and the 1970s, it has slightly narrowed over the past 30 years. In some countries such as the United States, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, the overall gains in life expectancy at age 65 since 1960 have been greater for men than for women.
If we are frank about Western society being the homeland of white people, we can surmise that white women are sacrificing longevity, not just at the expense of the achievement of white men now rejected as partners and producers, but also for the subsidized benefit of black men and women in America, and Muslim Arab men and women in Europe.
Yes, white women, you are getting what you want with your motherhood directed at HUE G. ALPHA’S state orthodoxy for the sake of victimized inferiors more easily conquered who, generally speaking,
are were NOT WHITE MEN. What will you do when the minorities catch up (note 2nd-to-last paragraph) and exclude you? Maybe you liberated moms will live to see your children ‘liberated’ from you.
The white man’s advantage in civil virtue and political rivalry is shrinking as designed. That’s how the IMF brokers conquer the West, Fabian style. White trash in the antebellum South, Roman plebs of the late republic succumbing to their own imperial accomplishment, I expect it happens over and over. The discriminating reciprocity and conquest that builds civilization by and for civilians is torn down by emergence of an elite oligarchy of finance, legislation, and executive violence concurrent with civic decline in wisdom and violent capacity. We are seeing and feeling it today. Every gun law in America is unconstitutional. White men ain’t what they used to be. For the investment of lost white man civics, are we getting our money’s worth from the remaining civics?
If white women think they were used and oppressed in the fictitious past of feminist revisionist history, then they are oblivious to the value of their own lives, for what profitable value they really are and really are not, and for what potentials they once carried in youth and are now exhausted for liberated female choice with no personal family dividends to call their own. The sex reward-to-cost ratio will have to improve dramatically, ladies, if you want adult companionship in the flesh. Yah, you’re a fleeced but proud loner spinster now and forever. Grrrrrrl power! We’ll see you once every year or two at the bar or club when you submit to your shameful fix.
If white women are sacrificing their longevities for this cause of white exhaustion, it couldn’t happen to a more deserving demographic, generally speaking. Men, keep your minds sharp on nonfiction studies, your bodies serviceable, just in case your managerial capacities are liberated from weaponized useful idiots having run their course before you have run yours.
Cherchez la femme.
—‘Reality’ Doug, 24 February 2013